Page:Lippincotts Monthly Magazine-40.djvu/573

Rh is supposed to consider only matters of finance, be expected to supervise and foster a bureau requiring the highest attainments in mathematics and geodesy, or in architectural design and construction, or in the erection and equipment of light-houses?

Again, why should one class of surveys be delegated to the Treasury, another to the Interior, another to the War, and a fourth to the Navy Department, when the principles underlying all are the same and the work could be. far more economically performed under one head? or why should the purely civil works of opening up and improving the water-ways and harbors of the country be placed in the hands of the War Department and intrusted to officers whose training has been of a military and not of a civil character?

The existing condition is not the result of foresight and a well-digested, systematic plan for the execution of our public works. It is a mere chance, a growth which has been developed by the exigencies of public requirements; and now that it is seriously proposed to co-ordinate and systematize these bureaus, so as to increase their utility and efficiency, the ever-present spirit of conservatism says it cannot be done, because some of the political patronage dispensed under the present regime would be lost.

This may be a real difficulty, but we think upon further investigation it will be found imaginary. The statesmen who are most influential and who retain the respect and confidence of their constituents are those who, with broad and liberal views of their obligations not only to their districts but to the whole country, legislate for the general good, knowing that the greater includes the lesser. They are returned to their posts of honor term after term so long as they are willing thus to serve their country. It is unnecessary to cite instances.

The proposed reorganization does not reduce the amount of work to be performed, but, on the contrary, increases it, and at the same time removes many serious objections to present methods which render a large percentage of the appropriations utterly useless.

The same or larger amounts of money are expected to be appropriated, to be expended upon the same class of works, under the same honesty of administration, and in the same districts, but it is proposed to modify somewhat the manner of preparing the appropriation bills, so as to avoid the present objectionable methods of legislation, waste of time, danger of failure, local jealousies, and contests over items, and to relieve members from the reproach of not obtaining their pro rata of the total amount appropriated for their district. It is further proposed to consolidate the bureau, so as to avoid the duplication of numerous parts of the work, to reduce the personnel in some bureaus, that it may be available in others, and so to distribute the duties as to secure more permanent and efficient results, accompanied by a sense of personal responsibility which does not now prevail.

Having faith in the possibility of effecting a reorganization at no very distant date, let us proceed "to determine the available resources, and the manner of arranging them so as to produce more economic result," or, in other words, to discuss "the defects of the present system, and their remedies."